Sen. Schumer gas for electric car trade in program?

[Treetop Flyer]

Interesting approach.

I take it you don't believe climate change is real by the way you answered the question.

Much of Texas was once underwater. Much of the northern parts of the country were once covered by glaciers. Climate changes and one doesn’t need to “believe” in it like it’s Santa.

It does say something when one constantly has to attribute things to it to try to get others to believe. Too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. Flood? Drought? Hurricane? China expanding their influence? Climate change. I guess we better go green faster though because:

cLimAte cHaNge iS ThrEateNinG oUr nAtionAl sEcurIty

More wind farms will keep islands above water while coal powered China raises their flag there.

 

[wink]

Of course China isn't doing their part. They are good at telling everyone they are and signaling it to these vulnerable nations.

So, a few guys on an internet forum see through China, it is just a PR campaign, but the diplomates and political leaders of certain Pacific island nations are too stupid to see that China is all talk looking to get a nose under the PIN tent to benefit China?

I propose the Pacific nations cozying up to China have no illusions about China's bona fides on climate commitments. They are simply making a deal with the devil for cash and investment.

 

[Mos]

But I am telling you that the State Dep has research both contracted and internal about the results of climate change in PINs.

The research is that there is a direct linkage to climate change in PINs.

It isn't just a ppt slide that State made up its an actual researched document with peer reviewed data sets.

It might be helpful to the debate here if you could produce this document. Sounds like an interesting read.

 

[nodropinufaka]

It might be helpful to the debate here if you could produce this document. Sounds like an interesting read.

I can’t submit it on a public forum. But it’s on SIPR and also floating around INDOPACOM If you know someone there

 

[Mos]

I can’t submit it on a public forum. But it’s on SIPR and also floating around INDOPACOM If you know someone there

Ah ok.

 

[Brett327]

1. There is no clear, irrefutable evidence that humans are responsible for climate change.
2. There is no clear, irrefutable evidence that reducing carbon emissions will actually stop/slow climate change.
3. The science is not "settled." In fact, it's in its infancy.
4. Until we can solve problems 1-3 above, then there are better places to spend the money that have direct, measurable, impacts on the wellbeing of the environment, our population, and the world as a whole such as clean air, clean water, and reduction of encroachment on native animal habitats.

What’s your standard for clear and irrefutable? This sounds an awful lot like saying that if scientists aren’t 100% sure, then they’re 100% wrong, which doesn’t sound like a reasonable basis for policy making. In fact it sounds like you’re just rationalizing climate change denial. So, your points 1-4 are, for all practical purposes, false.

I am by no means in the Greta Thunberg crowd, or think the planet is going to be uninhabitable in 50 years, but at some point, you’ve got to come to terms with reality and accept that some sensible steps need to be taken to mitigate the risk.

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

1. There is no clear, irrefutable evidence that humans are responsible for climate change.
2. There is no clear, irrefutable evidence that reducing carbon emissions will actually stop/slow climate change.
3. The science is not "settled." In fact, it's in its infancy.
4. Until we can solve problems 1-3 above, then there are better places to spend the money that have direct, measurable, impacts on the wellbeing of the environment, our population, and the world as a whole such as clean air, clean water, and reduction of encroachment on native animal habitats.

So we just do nothing and hope it all works out?

 

[wink]

So we just do nothing and hope it all works out?

@AllAmerican75 never said do nothing, or even implied it.

There are things we could be doing right here and now that would have a net positive impact, but we aren't because nobody wants to talk about them because the sustainability and environment discussion has become so politicized and driven in a single direction by the media and large special interests. We could spend tons of money on developing the third world so they don't pollute as much, change how we farm and raise livestock, actually work towards clean water and air, and then reduce the amount of habitat we destroy and our impact on that habitat. Instead we keep hearing that only solar, wind, carbon exchanges, and reducing our standard of living to pre-industrial levels will save the planet.

Like so many debates, it is often reduced to an absolute. It sounds like @AllAmerican75 simply wants a more directed approach that will have net benefits, regardless of the extent of climate change, without damaging Americans way of life and the economy in the process. His examples may not be all inclusive or even very effective. I don't know. But for me, most of the green programs start from the wrong place and have a minimal impact, especially if the world's worse polluters are not onboard. It is like Cold War concern over unilateral nuclear reductions. Just how does that ensure peace?

 

[nodropinufaka]

I think it could start with each individual just seeing that we are damaging our planet and try not be wasteful, act sustainably, recycle, and at least try to utilize renewable energy where it makes sense.

but like @SELRES_AMDO said- some people become so hostile at that very idea. That suggesting we bring reusable bags to the grocery store, cut back on single use plastics and driving an electric car can help is met with pure hostility.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I think it could start with each individual just seeing that we are damaging our planet and try not be wasteful, act sustainably, recycle, and at least try to utilize renewable energy where it makes sense.

but like @SELRES_AMDO said- some people become so hostile at that very idea. That suggesting we bring reusable bags to the grocery store, cut back on single use plastics and driving an electric car can help is met with pure hostility.

Is your reusable tote worse for the environment than a plastic bag?

Just how many times do you have to use a 'bag for life' to make it worth it.

www.euronews.com

Some feel-good measures might not actually help. It remains to be seen if it’s even feasible to move to widespread use of electric cars.

 

[wink]

I think it could start with each individual just seeing that we are damaging our planet and try not be wasteful, act sustainably, recycle, and at least try to utilize renewable energy where it makes sense.

The vast majority of Americans feel that way. They do their part many ways not listed above. I for one draw the line at reusable grocery bags. Paper bags. a renewable recyclable resource, was replaced by plastic claiming that, wait for it, those types of plastic bags were better for the environment. And I am sure I do more for the environment than most anyone using filthy bags from home. But hey, every little bit helps. Am I right?

 

[Swanee]

Is your reusable tote worse for the environment than a plastic bag?

Just how many times do you have to use a 'bag for life' to make it worth it.

www.euronews.com

Some feel-good measures might not actually help. It remains to be seen if it’s even feasible to move to widespread use of electric cars.

I tend to agree. Those 15 cent walmart bags have more plastic than the free ones.
Plus, it's not the consumers who are the problem- it's the producers of the material who are creating the problem.

 

[HAL Pilot]

A couple of years ago, Hawaii outlawed plastic bags and makes the customer pay 15 cents per paper bag.

NEX and the commissary still use the plastic and give free bags. They’re on federal property under federal jurisdiction. They say it’s cheaper and more convenient for their customers. I agree.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The plastic bags aren’t bad if they are reused (trash bags and lunch bags) and disposed of properly. The bigger problem is over consumption and overuse of packaging to begin with. 2020 was probably a record year for landfills between takeout/delivery packaging, Amazon/postal packaging, and of course useless masks, gloves, and wipes.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Is it that hard to bring a canvas bag to the grocery store?


The NEX and Commissary doing that in Hawaii is one of the big reasons locals hate the military.